The strophic structure of the
eulogy of Ephesians 1:3-14
J H Barkhuizen University of P retoria
A bstract
T he strophic structure o f the eulogy o f Ephesians 1:3-14
Since E duard N orden’s (1913) statem ent concerning the awkward length and construction of Ephesians 1:3-14, a flood of studies have b een devoted to the analysis of this G re e k sen ten ce. In this p a p e r I have firstly given an overview o f those studies representative of the structure of the eulogy of Ephesians 1:3-14, and secondly presen ted a new reconstruction o f this passage based on prin ciples of form and content.
1. IN TRO D U C TIO N
T he existence of hymns o r hymnic fragm ents in the New T estam en t is a com m on and accepted fact am ong New T estam en t scholars and hymnologists. T hese hymns or hymnic fragments have been divided by M artin (1982:789-790; 1983:132-133) into th ree categories: T h e L ucan canticles, the hymns in th e R evelation, and specific Christian hymns. T o this last category belong most o f the hymns and hymnic frag ments in the New Testam ent. Some of these specific Christian hymns can eith er be distinguished clearly from th e ir co n tex t, for exam ple P h ilip p ian s 2:6-11 an d 1 Tim othy 3:16, or are woven into the text, for exam ple the hymn in the prologue of the Gospel of John (1:1-18) and the eulogy o f Ephesians 1:3-14.
It is im portant to note in this regard th a t no hymn or hymnic fragm ent in the New T estam en t has been ‘arran g ed ’ (w hether the hymn has b een ‘q u o ted ’ o r ‘re w o rk ed ’) into specific stro p h es by the p a rtic u la r a u th o r. T his has led to m any endeavours on the part of various scholars to reconstruct such strophes, w ith the re s u lt th a t one is rem in d ed o f the w ell-know n L a tin idiom : Q uot hom ines, tot sententiae\ A lthough these reconstructions rem ain speculative there seem s to be a never-ending flow of articles intent on establishing yet a n o th er ‘strophic’ structure for these hymns.
S eein g th a t th is a rtic le p re s e n ts a n o th e r such a n a tte m p t, it w ould seem n ecessary to p o se th e q u e stio n o f w h e th e r it is o f any im p o rta n c e to estab lish strophic structures for these hymns. I believe, in conjunction with several im portant New T estam en t scholars, th a t this question m ust be answ ered in the affirm ative. It is, in fact, o f both exegetical and liturgical im portance: T hese hymns w ere woven into their present contexts not merely for an aesthetical reason, but they are closely re la te d to the thought sequence o f the particu lar passage o r text as a whole. Thus K ram er (1967:35) states: ‘D ie Exegese w ird nam lich bei ein em so bew usst formu- lierten T ext nie [italics mine] von der stilistischen Form en absehen konnen; darum hángt von ihrem richtigen V erstandnis einiges ab’. Louw (1989:41) has also shown th a t the hym n in th e prologue o f th e G ospel of Jo h n contains key m otives antici pating th e th em e o f the G ospel as a w hole. A lso o f im p o rtan ce is the following statem ent in regard to Ephesians 1:3-14:
...so ist doch nicht zu besw eifeln, dass m it d er U n tersch eid u n g von T rad itio n und In terp retatio n auch fiir die Auslegung d er Briefe eine w ichtige u nd fru c h tb a re B etrachtungsw eise g efu n d en ist. B ereits P au lu s h a t sich er v o rg ep rag te T ra d itio n e n au fg en o m m en u nd fiir seine theologischen A rgum entationen ausgewertet....
(Lang 1969:7)
In the case o f E phesians 1:3-14 this is o f significance, since this eulogy is seen by many scholars as the key to the le tte r as a w hole (exegetical aspect, e g M au rer 1951/2; K ram er 1967; S ch n ack en b u rg 1977), as w ell as th e fact th a t it is m ost probably related to a baptism al ritu al (liturgical aspect, e g C outts 1956/7; Lang 1969).
It goes w ithout saying that the reconstruction of these hymns cannot be realised w ith o u t taking into account the stro p h ic p rin cip les involved. Several im p o rtan t stu d ies have b e e n published in this reg ard , th a t o f N o rd en [1913](1956) having exerted considerable influence. O f recen t im portance are the studies o f V an der Lugt (1980) and W atson (1986) on O ld T estam ent poetry, and G loer (1984) on New T estam ent hymns. However, these principles have also been identified and applied to specific hym ns in several o th e r stu d ies on th e subject. In g e n e ra l o n e may distinguish two main categories of strophic principles:
* T hose related to content'.
JHBarkhuáat
Ephesians 13-14
• T hose related to form : grammatical, syntactical and stylistic-rhetorical elem ents, as well as form al hym nic elem ents (m etre, refrain, acrostic, etc).
It is im p o rta n t to n o te th a t th ese categ o ries a re to be seen in a com plem entary sen se, an d th a t th ey sh o u ld n o t be a p p lied in iso latio n . W h e re th is o n e-sid ed approach has been followed, w ell-founded criticism has not rem ained behind. This has also hap p en ed in th e case o f the reconstruction of the eulogy in Ephesians 1:3- 14 (see Lang 1969:8).
2. n V E IM P O R T A N T A PPR O A C H ES T O T H E S T R U C T U R E O F E PH ESIA N S 1:3-14
T he presence of hymnic or liturgical elem ents in the first three chapters o f the letter to the E phesians has b een widely acknow ledged, even by those who reject the idea o f a h ym n in E p h esian s 1:3-14 (e g S anders 1965; D e ic h g ra b e r 1967:72; G n ilk a 1971:60; C onzelm ann 1976:90; Schnackenburg 1977:68, 69, 75). N ot only does this o pening section begin w ith a doxology or eulogy (1:3a), but it also concludes with o n e (3:21). In th e light o f th e liturgical c h a ra c te r of th e o p en in g ch ap te rs, th e in stru c tio n o f th e a u th o r in 5:19 gains in significance: ‘sp eak to o n e a n o th e r in psalms, hymns and songs; sing and make music in your hearts to the I ^ r d ’ (N EB).
Since th e study o f In n itz e r (1904) various analyses have b een a tte m p te d at reconstructing the ‘hymn’ in 1:3-14. According to Schnackenburg (1977:67-68), they can all be divided into three groups:
* T hose who m aintain th at the au th o r has taken elem ents from an original hymn and rew orked them into the first three chapters or into 1:3-14;
* T hose w ho m ain tain th a t 1:3-14 is in fact a ‘q u o te d ’ hymn (i e tak en directly from the liturgy into its present context);
* T hose w ho follow the opinion o f the first group, and w ho have subsequently tried to reconstruct the ‘original’ hymn.
A s to th e ty p e o f ‘h y m n ’ o r ‘hym nic fra g m e n t p re s e n t in 1:3-14, 1:3 c le a rly ch a ra c te rise s it as eulogy (see also 2 C or 1:3 and 1 Ft 1:3), based on th e Jew ish Berakah o r the H odajot from the Q um ran com m unity (see especially A udet 1958; D eichgraber 1967; Robinson 1964; M aier 1972; Schnackenburg 1977:68). This type o f ‘genre’ consists of two basic elem ents: (a) G od is addressed in the third person, often defined by appositions; This is followed by (b) a ‘body’, nam ing and espanding upon the reason(s) for the eulogy, often referring to G od’s salvific acts tow ards his
JHBarkhiiizen people (Israel o r the Jews) or the Christian community.
In the following overview I have selected the five most im portant approaches to the structure of this eulogy. This will be followed in paragraph 3 by a reconstruction by the present author.
2.1 C am bier: T he trinitarian theory
C am bier (1963) has p resented a fairly d etailed analysis of the passage, taking both cate g o ries of principles into consideration, nam ely a form al as w ell as a logical- exegetical principle. T he m ain form al aspect on which his structure is based is the presen ce o f the threefold doxological phrase in verses 6 (el<; e n a iv o u
XÓpiTog aú x o u ), 12 (elq t o e li/a i r^iac; e lq e n a iu o v 5óín(; a ú to u ) , an d 14 (elq ë n a ii/o u tfiq 5ó^ri<; aOxoO). In the case o f 6 and 12 this p h rase is p re c e d e d by a n o th e r recurring p repositional phrase, nam ely (Korea tfiv eú5oKÍov/PouXfiu t o u GeXrDoaxo^ aircou). These phrases, then, serve as m arkers of the strophic division of the passage. C am bier also lists as an im portant formal elem ent the prepositional phrases with é v in e v XpicrcS (3), éi/ ocircS (4/10), and e u S (7/13a/13b).
In a d d itio n to th ese fo rm al ele m e n ts, C am b ier reso rts to a logical division consisting of a trinitarian scheme. His overall structure is as follows:
Introduction: 1:3 = the eulogy
First strophe: 1:4-6 = G od’s adoption of us Second strophe: 1:7-12 = our salvation through Christ Final strophe: 1:13-14 = sanctification through the Holy Spirit.
In a South A frican context the rep resen tatio n s o f both R oberts (1983:27-44) and Louw (1987) correspond to the structure suggested by Cambier.
Tw o p o in ts o f criticism o fte n b ro u g h t in ag a in st this division, an d w hich certainly b ear weight, are (a) the asym m etrical division thus established (i e a too long second strophe, 7-12; see Bouwman 1974:26), which is neccessitated by (b) the rigid application of a trinitarian scheme.
2.2 Schattenm ann: T he isom etric theory
A lth o u g h th e re c o n stru c tio n o f S c h atten m an n (1965:1-10), follow ed by th a t of M itsakis (1986), has exerted little influence, it m erits a sep arate discussion. H e presents us with the following structure;
Ephesians 1:3-14
‘Ú berschrift’: 3a First strophe: 3b-5a
R efrain; 5b-6a
Second strophe: 6b-9a
Refrain: 9b-10a
‘M itteischrift’: 10b Third strophe; 11
Refrain: 12
Fourth strophe: 13-14a
Refrain; 14b.
T hree principles are involved in this structure:
* An isom etric principle, which form s the main dividing principle. This is based on the change within the Greeic language from a quantative m etre (long+ short) to a rh y th m ical m e tre (a c c e n te d + u n a c c e n te d ). W ith th e inclusion o f the refrain, stro p h e 1 has 60 words and 136 syllables; strophe 2 consists also o f 60 words and 136 syllables; strophe 3 has 40 words with 77 syllables; and strophe 4 also 40 words but 92 syllables.
* T he refrain. It is to be noted, how ever, th a t S ch atten m an n tak es the phrase accom paning the refrain (eiq ën aiv o i/ xry; Só^riq), namely Korea tfii; eúëoKÍai' ocircou as the refrain of the second strophe.
* Them e. A t the beginning of each strophe the author places three ‘V erbalgriffe’ (S ch atten m an n 1965:3) for em phasis, which at the sam e tim e in tro d u ce the th e m e o f th e s tr o p h e . In s tro p h e 1 th ey a re ; eO X oyfiaaq, e n e X e ^ a to , Ttpoopiaaq. In strophe 2 they are: cxapiTaxreu', énepíacreuCTei', yuojpúJOK;. In strophe 3 they are; éKXripwGTTjj.ei', npoopiaGéL'Teq (third verbal concept?). In strophe 4; áK oúaaureq, m o re ú a a v T e q éaijipayíaBTixe.
Two points of criticism may be put forward against Schattenm ann’s structure:
* H is division of strophes com pletely cuts across th e syntactical stru ctu re and logical sequence of thought (see also K ram er 1967:37).
* His m ethod of counting syllables w ithin the rhythmical p attern of the language is quite arbitrary and does not comply with the principles of rhythmical poetry. In the w ell-defined rhythmical poetry of the fifth century and onwards, the basis o f this m e tre is isosyllaby and hom otony; E ach c o rresp o n d in g line o f each strophe has the sam e num ber of syllables (isosyllaby) accented in each case on
J H Barkhuizen
the identical syllable in each line of each strophe (hom otony). T hese principles are totally ignored by S chattenm ann. A lthough each stro p h e in the end may contain the sam e n um ber o f syllables (which in the case of elision and hiatus becom es im probable), th e re m ust always be a dem onstrable in n er correspon d e n c e , as I have o u tlin e d ab o v e. K ra m e r (1967:37) has th e r e fo re rightly referred to this theory as ‘Z ahlenspielerei’.
2 3 K rám er: T he form ulaic theory
K ram er (1967) like most scholars b efore him, ignores the question o f an ‘original’ hymn, and also tackles the problem of the text as presented in 1:3-14.
F o r him ‘der einheitliche M ittelpunkt des ganzen Segensgeschehens’ (a s ta te m ent taken from Schlier 1958:40 note 2) with regard to the form and content o f the eulogy, is the ‘form alhafte e f Xpicrcq)’ (1967:38). Formally this is confirm ed in both the opening e v form ula and ending é v form ula. F rom this it is obvious th a t the sentence endings ‘iiberhaupt ein besonderes G ewicht zukom m t’ (1967:38).
However, two e v formulas deserve special attention:
* e u aÚTÍp at the end of verse 10 m arks the close of a period o r strophe, and not the beginning o f a new section as indicated for instance by N estle (and followed inter alia by Schnackenburg 1977 and Louw 1987). F o r K ram er it serves as epexegetical apposition to the preceding phrase ‘all things in C hrist’, in which th e p h ra se ‘all things’ is explained o r exp an d ed in th e p h ra se ‘w hich a re in heaven and on earth ’. ' E v otOxS thus serves as focal or em phatical repetition of eu XpiCTTS.
* T he sam e applies to ev óyánri at the close o f verse 4. T o place this phrase as the opening statem en t of a n o th e r strophe o r section (as Schnackenburg 1977 and Louw 1987 also do), is contrary to the hymnic style. ’Ei/ á y ó n ^ can easily be p erceiv ed as ‘N a c h tra g ’ (1967:40) to c^eX e^ax o ‘...w obei es d u rch die N achholung und E n d stellu n g im K olon eirien b e so n d e re n T o n em p fan g t...’ (1967:40). R egarding both form and content it is related to the closing phrase e u tS liyorrrijiei/u) of verse 6.
The following structure has been put forward by K ram er:
E phesians 13-14
I Benedictus form ula 1:3
II Body: 1:4-12
Parts: a. 4-6 b. 7-10 c. 11-12
III Conclusion: 1:13-14.
M ost scholars recognise verse 3 as the introduction. However, both Schattenm ann (1965:2) and R oberts (1983:16) propose a break in verse 3. A part from the fact that it form s a closely knit unity, two im portant aspects, the typical hymnic relative-style and w o rd -rep etitio n (in the form o f a paronom asia): EúXoyrixóc;...ó eúXoyf)aa<;... eúX oyí^, a re ignored. M ost scholars also view v erses 13-14 as th e final section ( ‘ep ilo g u e’), b ecause o f the change from the ‘w e’ style to the ‘you’ style, a change w hich m arks it as a tran sitio n al passage (the receivers o f the letter are addressed a n d re m in d e d th a t they also sh a re in th e se blessings o f G o d - S c h n ack en b u rg 1977:85-87). It is, however, the middle section, verses 4-12, on which scholars have d iffered in th e ir reconstructions. K rám er divides this m iddle section (4-12) into th ree sub-sections on the following principles:
• E ach sub-section consists o f a sequence m arked by a relative pronoun or év-phrase, a main verb, an aorist participle, and prepositional phrases (with k oto
and ei^).
• Since éi/ X pi(rc2 forms the key motive, in each sub-section reference is made to a specific existence of Christians in Christ (expressed in eluai, ëxoiaey, eli/ai).
L ooking a t the reconstruction o f K ram er, one again notices the problem with the long second section, although K ram er does try to avoid the difficulty by dividing it in to th r e e s u b -se c tio n s, w hich gives th e im p re ss io n o f sy m m etrical b a la n c e . H o w ev er, th e p ro b le m w ith th e doxological p h ra s e (re fra in ) rem ain s. In his structure it com es at the close o f section Ila and lie, and III. Its position at the close of Ila seem s awkward and unaccounted for.
2.4 Lang: Second exponent o f the form ulaic theory
In som e prelim inary and general rem arks Lang (1969) acknow ledges the existence of several hym nic m arkers, such as participle and relative phrases, as well as the liturgical form ula elq enaivov, but he rejects the dividing function of the participles and the liturgical ph rase in this eulogy (Lang 1969:9). This is a logical conclusion seeing th a t he follows K ram er’s ‘sprachliche’ analysis very closely (L ang 1969:note
17).
J H Barkhtúzai
Lang also ju d g es th e b en ed ic tio n fo rm u la o f 1:3 o f p a ra m o u n t im portance. Following th e p a tte rn o f the eulogy (G od is first praised in the third-person style, th en th e reaso n for this praise follows), the au th o r adds the key m otive o r focal phrase é u XptcrrS. Verses 4-14 are thus ‘eine theologische Entfaltung’ (Lang 1969: 10) o f this eulogy. F or Lang, a significant change o f style occurs from verse llff: W hereas th e gram m atical subject in 4-10 has b een G od, in 11 it becom es *we’ and “you’. This implies a break in the passage, which Lang m arks off as the beginning of the second strophe. From this it follows th at the eulogy is divided into:
A. T he benediction 1:3 B. First strophe 1:4-10 C. Second strophe 1:11-14.
Sections B and C serve as an expansion of the benediction. W ithin B and C we find the recurrence of the e u form ula at the beginning and end of phrases which serve to divide each section into two sub-sections: B (4-10): (a) 4-6); (b) 7-10. C (11-14): (a) 11-12; (b ) 13-14. T h e fu n ctio n of this éi/ fo rm u la is seen n o t only as strophic m arker, but it also picks up the all-im portant c v X purcS form ula of the benediction. W ithin th ese su b -stro p h es Lang follows K ram er in identifying a clearly defined sequence of m ain verb, participle, and prepositional phrases. They are:
Section B 4-6: éíeX éícn:o npoopícra(; KCrtá ttii; eú6oKÍai'/el(; ënaiuou. Section B 7-10: ëxoiaeu yi/topÍCToq Kaxá Tfii» eú5oK Íav/el^ olKouoiaiai». Section C 11-12: éKXTipá)0T\)j,ei' npoopi00éin:e<; icofcá triu (k)uXfiu/el<; xo c lu a t
Lang (1969:11) observes in this connection: ‘All dies ist nicht bloss Zufall, sondem bewusst gestaltete Form , wenn auch nicht in streng m etrischer Bindung’.
As to section C, in which the “you’ leads ‘zu den angeredeten B riefem pfángern’, a stru c tu ra l p arallelism has been noted by several scholars (O chel 1934; Schlier 1958; M asson 1953). B oth a re in tro d u c e d by é v S Kai. H e re we also find the sequence of m ain verb, participle phrase and prepositional phrase, but in the second sub-section the double participle has a disturbing effect. The change in 13 from *we’ to “you’ and then back to ‘we’ in 14 also constitutes a problem for Lang. H e writes:
D ie se r W echsel u nd das g ram m atisch e A n ak o lu th e rfo rd e rn eine E rk laru n g ....A m b esten lásst sich d ie se r ta tb e sta n d m .E. d urch die A nnahm e verstandlich m achen, dass der B riefschreiber ein urspriing- liches ‘W ir’ d er E ulogie, das den Stil d e r lo b p reisen d en G em ein d e
F phcxianx 1:3-14
kennzeichnet, zum Zw eck der U eberleitung auf die Leser in den Ihr- Stil um gesetzt hat und dabei nicht konsequent verfahren 1st.
(Lang 1969:11-12)
T o the verb éKXTipwGTViei/ of verse 11 thus, originally éa(J)payÍCT0Tmev in verse 13 corresponds, th at is éa(|)payía9rn:e was originally éa<t>payía0TDiei/.
T he dou b le use o f k v S koI also reveals, according to Lang, th e hand o f the a u th o r. In reconstructing the eulogy he thus erases the second occurrence of this form ula and transforms verse 13 to its ‘original’ sequence:
k v 2 Kol n u rte ú a a i/te q éa(jipayía0Tmei/ tíD nveújiom try; enayyeXion;
As the final result Lang presents the following structure:
A. Benediction form ula 1:3
= Praise of God for his blessings in Christ B. First strophe 1:4-10
= the adoption act of G od in Christ a. 4-6
b. 7-10
C. Second strophe 1:11-14
= G od’s salvific act in Christ as baptism al gift to the congregation a. 11-12
b. 13-14.
T he asym m etrical relation o f B to C, the rejection of the doxological ph rase elq en aiv o v and the participles in 5 and 9 as dividing principles, and the linking of 11 to 13, are points that argue against this division. R egarding the function given to the doxological phrase, Lang (1969:11) w rites: ‘D ie Schlussform el e lq e n a ii/o v xfy; Só^riq OÚXOU V.14 v erk lam m ert zugleich die b e id e n T eile V .4-10 und V .11-14 jeweils gegen Ende der ersten H albstrophe V.6 und V.12’. This is not clear nor is it convincing. While verses 11 and 13 are introduced by the sam e form ula, the change from ‘we’ to ‘you’ does not occur in 11. From the very beginning the author uses the ‘w e’ style. It is only at 13 that the change really occurs. For this reason alm ost all sc h o la rs have linked 13-14, not 11-14. In my final d iscu ssio n o f th e v ario u s principles of the strophic system, I will return to the participle phrases, which both
J H BarUutizen K ram er and L ang to my m ind erroneously reject as the dividing principle in this particular eulogy!
2 5 Coutts: Reconstructing the ‘original’ hymn
C o u tts (1 9 5 6 /7 ) is alm o st u n iq u e am ong sch o lars in his re c o n s tru c tio n o f th e ‘o rig in al’ hymn. H is com parative study (relatin g E ph 1:3-14 to 1 P t 1:3-12, both b e in g o rig in ally re la te d to a b a p tism a l litu rg y ) an d in g e n io u s re c o n s tru c tio n (although this will always rem ain speculative) deserves discussion.
C o u tts fully recognises th e dividing function o f the p h ra se e l^ enaiw ov xfy; 8ó^Tiq at 6, 12 and 14, as well as traces o f a furth er form ula in 5 and 11 (the Kotxá- phrases), with a displaced rem iniscence o f this form ula in 9. H e also endorses the trin itarian principle as basic to the thought sequence of the eulogy. But it is in his reco n stru ctio n th a t C o u tts’s co n trib u tio n m ainly lies. T o effectu ate a n ‘o rig in al’ hymn, the following procedure has been followed:
a. Five short phrases are om itted for various reasons (for these reasons the reader is referred to C outts’s article):
verse 12 ToOq > XpicrcS verse 14
verse 11 npoopia0éi/re<; > evepyoGuxoq verse 11 elq t o e lv a i
verse 4 eli/ai ip S i; áyíouq > e v áy ó n ^.
b. S om e g ra m m a tic a l c h an g es a re n e c e ss a ry , c h a n g in g fo r e x a m p le Ka0(b^ éCeXéCato o f verse 4 into th e hymnic ó êKXeCá)i.ei'oq, o r éCT^ipayíoGiTce of verse 13 to éa(|)payía0Tm ei'. In this case th e re a d e r is also advised to study these ch an g es m ore closely in C o u tts (1957:12-123). H is re c o n s tru c tio n in G reek is given at the end of this p ap er in the appendix, to which the re a d e r is referred in my following evaluation.
G iven the fact th at any endeavour to reconstruct the hymns o r hymnic fragm ents in the New Testam ent, especially into its ‘original’ form, is o f a speculative nature, the reconstruction of Coutts is nothing but ingenious for several reasons:
* T he vexing problem o f the relation o f the length o f the second strophe to the first an d th ird stro p h e s (th e u sual division o f this eulogy), is a v o id ed by a com pletely sym m etrical balance o f three strophes with 6 lines each, the refrain comprising lines 5-6 of each strophe.
Epheáaas 1:3-14
• This refrain consists o f two lines w ith an identical p attern , w hich C outts based on both the doxological phrase of 6 ,1 2 and 14 and the form ula o f 5, 9 and 11. • T h ere is also a th em atic symmetry; each strophe corresponds neatly to one of
the divine persons o f the Holy Trinity, and although in my own analysis I have not tak en this as dividing principle, the concept of the Trinity is clearly present in the eulogy.
• T his reco n stru ctio n finally integrates the participle and prepositional phrases w ithin the hymnic style.
2.6 Schnackenburg: T he linguistic theory
O ne o f th e m ost profound studies on the E phesian eulogy has b een u ndertaken by S chnackenburg (1977). A lthough he saw th e study o f K ram er only a fte r his own analysis had b een m ade, in many respects he agreed with K ram er. Like K ram er his approach is a form al division of the text, but then he follows a linguistic approach by a n a ly s in g th e te x t ‘...u n te r sy n ta k tis c h e n , se m a n tis c h e n u n d p ra g m a tis c h e n A spekte...’ (1977:69). T he principle o f content (‘die A usdrucks- und Bedeutungs- eb en e’ 1977:68) is thus subordinated to the linguistic principle (‘Nach den neueren lin g u is tisc h e n E rk e n n tn is s e n w ird m an von d e r s p ra c h lic h -fo rm a le n A nalyze ausgehen m ussen’ 1977:68). F o r our purposes only the first category (the syntactic analysis) is of im portance.
As p o in t o f d e p a rtu re , S chnackenburg refers to those fo rm al e le m e n ts th a t occu r re p e a te d ly in th e passage, nam ely th e form s K a0óx;-K atá (4, 5b, 7c, 9b) co u p led w ith th re e expressions indicating pu rp o se: a final infinitive sen ten ce in v e rse 4, an d th e e iq -ex p ressio n s in 6, 8, 10, 12 an d 14. H e re fe rs to th is as a ‘sp ra c h lic h e B ew egung’ (S ch n ack en b u rg 1977:74), w hich c an n o t be accidental. T h e se sy n ta c tic fo rm s h av e th e fu n c tio n o f re flex io n an d e x p la n a tio n o f th e p re c e d in g p a rtic ip ia l sta te m e n ts. T his syntactic schem e in tro d u c e s a ‘S prach- bew egung’ com prising pauses followed by new statem ents leading again to pauses, e t c ete ra. In the w ords o f Schnackenburg (1977:75): ‘In sein er a u f d ie Segnung durch G o tt au sg erich teten R eflexion legt d er V erfasser kurze B esinnungspausen ein, um sogleich aufgrund des schon G esagten und in Drang, noch m ehr zu sagen, w ieder neu aufzuheben und seine Reflexion w eiterzu-fuhren’.
In the last sectio n (verses 13-14) we find no K atá-form , but a dou b le stated purpose, both introduced by elg.
In th is ‘S p ra c h b e w e g u n g ’ he id e n tif ie s as tr a n s itio n s ( p a u s e s a n d new beginnings) verses 4 (Koxei'dimtQi' airzoQ), 6 (éi» xS nyotnrDici'a)), 8 (éu to ctti ao<|)Í
9
Kol (|)poiTTaei), 10 ( t a ê n l y f^ ) , 12 (ev xffi X p iax S ), and the closing doxology (xfiq ocúxoO) in 14.JHBiuUiuten Schnackenburg (1977:73-74) accordingly identifies six ‘Sprachbew egungen’ with the following syntactic pattern as basis:
I (3-4) participle + KoGúq + infinitive o f purpose (elwxi) II (5-6) participle + Koxá + final elg
III (7-8) é u S + indicative + K ara + cli; IV (9-10) participle + k o to + elq
V (11-12) é u S + participle + K otá + elq TO eli/ai VI (13-14) é v S + participle + double el^.
Schnackenburg explicitly avoids the term strophe and his concept o f ‘S prachbew e gungen’ corresponds to Robbins’s concept of ‘periods’ (see below).
2.7 Robbins: T he rhetorical theory
A c o m p le te ly d iffe re n t a p p ro a c h h as recen tly b een tak en by R o b b in s (1986), follow ing his article on th e stru ctu re o f th e hymn in Philippians 2:6-11 (R obbins 1980). In b o th th ese articles R obbins p lead s fo r a rhetorically based approach. R eferring to the dilem m a scholars have faced since N orden [1913](1956), as a result o f the length and aw kw ardness of E phesians 1:3-14, Robbins (1986:677) ascribes this dilem m a to ‘an inadequate understanding of the nature of ancient G reek com position’. Robbins has in mind the principles o f G reek rhetoric as explained by the G re e k rh eto rician s and exem plified in G reek literatu re, especially th e principles involving periodic structure. A ccording to this principle a lengthy G reek sentence breaks up into sm aller units (cola), the ideal period normally consisting of four cola, each having m ore or less the length of a hexam eter. T he basic concept behind the period is that one should be able to pronounce it with a single breath. The sentence o f E p h esian s 1:3-14 is divided accordingly into eight periods. A ccording to this principle Robbins presents the following rhetorical structure:
A. verse 3 = 5 cola
B. verse 4 = 5 cola
C. verses 5-6 = 5 cola D. verses 7-8 = 6 cola E. verses 9-10 = 5 cola F. verse 13 = 5 cola G. verse 14 = 3 cola.
Ephesians 1:3-14
O n e has th e im pression th a t R obbins (1986:687) is not adverse to the idea th at a prayer or hymn forms the basis o f the eulogy, but states nevertheless th at ‘...similar structures are found in o th er p arts of the N T th at are not hymns o r prayers....The form is b e tte r explained in term s of classical com position’. W hat is o f im m ediate im portance is that the refrain in each of its occurrences concludes a specific period (C, F and H), just as it does in the structure of Schnackenburg (II, V and VI).
3. T H E STRO PH IC S T R U C T U R E O F EPH ESIA N S 1:3-14
As indicated above, it is not possible to present in the compass of one article all the views on this passage. T he read er is therefore advised to study especially the views o f such scholars as M asson (1953), O ’B rien (1979), D e ich g rab er (1967), Schille (1965), M aurer (1951/2), and D ahl (1951). An excellent bibliography up to 1963 is provided by C am bier (1963:59 note 3).
Before presenting the reader with the present author’s reconstruction in G reek, some rem arks concerning the formal principles involved in establishing the strophic structure of the eulogy, should be put forward:
• I ju d g e th e refrain to be o f p a ra m o u n t im p o rta n c e a n d am in c o m p le te disagreem ent with the studies of Sanders, K ram er, and Lang regarding this vital stro p h ic p rin c ip le . T h e re fra in has grad u ally b eco m e th e m ost im p o rta n t strophic m a rk e r in th e C hristian hymn, and by no m eans a t all should it be disregarded in those hymnic passages in which it does occur, as for exam ple in the case o f E phesians 1:3-14 (see in this regard also B arkhuizen 1989a:12-13; Stander 1989a:209-214; 1989b:104-105). Sanders’s (1965:226) criticism th at the p hrase eig ë n a iu o v xn<; only hints in its closing position a t a doxology, and not in its occurrence in verses 6 and 12, and that it can therefore not serve as dividing prin cip le, is not convincing; and it in fact reveals an in ad eq u ate understanding of the function of the refrain in hymns profane or Christian. The fa c t is, how ever, th a t th e p h ra s e d o es form a d oxology in e a c h c ase, as Schnackenburg (1977:78-79) has recognised, although he unfortunately does not apply it in his formal or syntactical analysis. But even if it w ere not doxological in the other two occurrences, this is no valid objection: In many hymns from the fifth century onw ards the refrain can vary in its n a tu re and syntactical form. T hus the fact th a t in E phesians 1:3-14 it does not follow the exact verbal or syntactical p a tte rn is no valid arg u m en t ag ain st its function as such in this instance or any other.
• T he prepositional phrases with éi/ m ark both the beginning and the ending of
strophes: as opening form ula in 7, 11, and 13; as closing form ula in 4, 8, and 10. In th is way th e o p e n in g a n d e n d in g o f stro p h e s re s u lt in th e sa m e fo r m a l structure. Again, Sanders’s (1965: note 52) argum ent, th a t in 13b e v S does not refer to C hrist, as in the o th e r cases, but to the G ospel, fails to discredit the purely fo rm a l function of e u (see also Schnackenburg 1977:75), w hich many scholars adopt as the dividing principle (e g D ibelius 1962:59; K ram er 1967:38ff; Lang 1969:10; R ichter 1970 - the la tte r in connection w ith the Logos hymn in the G ospel o f John). Schnackenburg (1977:76-77), however, also displaces the p rep o sitio n al phrases e u áy ó n ri (4-5) and t v ocúrS (10-11). In b o th cases he ignores the obvious structural p attern o f the passage as a w hole: npoopicrotq at the beginning o f 5, corresponds to y u w p icaq a t the beginning o f 9, w hile the p la c e m e n t o f e v a u x S a t th e b e g in n in g o f 11 d is tu rb s th e b a la n c e an d corresp o n d en ce betw een it and 13 (both begin with e v S Kai). This identical form ula is just too obvious to be ignored.
• T h e p articip ial p h rases in 5 and 9, already indicated as stro p h ic m arkers by C oppieters (1909) and confirm ed by D ibelius (1953), M au rer (1951/2), Kase- m ann (1958), Schille (1965), G nilka (1971), and Schnackenburg (1977), serve to introduce in each instance a new section. In this regard both K ram er and Lang erro n eo u sly reject this p rinciple in this hymn, a lth o u g h they recognise it as strophic principle in other instances!
• I have also taken the relative pronoun in 14 as a typical hymnic strophic m arker. For its use as strophic m arker one shoule also com pare the hymns o f Philippians 2:6-11 and Colossians 1:15-20, as well as in many post-biblical hymns. V erses 13 and 14 therefore each comprise a strophe, contra Schnackenburg (1977:74). • R egarding the principle of content, I have deviated from the trinitarian concept
as d iv id in g p rin c ip le , an d have r a th e r id e n tifie d v ario u s th em a tic m otives expressive of the m ain them e (th e praise o f G o d for all his blessings), each section co n tain in g a specific o r d o m in an t m otive. T h ese m otives a re listed below, in Section 4.1, before the G reek text of the eulogy.
O ne o f the m ain problem s with many o f th e existing reconstructions concerns the lo n g se c tio n usually ta k e n to co m p rise th e ‘se c o n d ’ stro p h e (v e rse s 7-12), as B ouw m an (1974:26) has a lread y in d icated . T h is is a resu lt o f all those re c o n s tru ctio n s th a t divide th e passage into th re e sectio n s, b a se d on th e trin ita ria n concept. In this regard one should recognise the fact th a t th e trin itarian concept may be seen as an obstacle and it should th e re fo re not be ap p lied in to o rigid a m anner (see C outts 1956/7:117). And, although it is w ithout doubt present in this eulogy, I have th e re fo re not taken it as a dividing principle, as alread y indicated
J H Barkhuízen
Ephesians
1
J-14
above.
W hether we refer to this passage as ‘K unstprosa’ or poetry, it is clear th a t the passage is a d elib erately stylised in tro d u ctio n to th e le tte r as a w hole. It is also irre le v a n t w h e th e r we call th e sections into w hich it is usually divided ‘Sprach- bew egungen’, periods, strophes o r m erely sections. In my own reconstruction of this eulogy, taking all the above-m entioned principles of form and content into account, I have follow ed the structural concept put forw ard by W atson (1986), taken on his p art from H aublein, The Stanza, quoted by W atson (1986:160). A ccording to this co n c e p t th e sta n z a form s th e m ain divisive e le m e n t w ithin a p o e m /h y m n , the strophe the m ain divisive elem en t w ithin a stanza, and th e verse the m ain divisive ele m e n t w ithin a stro p h e. W atson com pares this in tern al relatio n with th a t o f a h o u se (s ta n z a ), of w hich th e room s (s tro p h e s ) form th e sm a lle r units, and the fu rn itu re (verses) in the room th e sm allest units. O ne may o f course object th a t stanza and strophe are used in many works as synonyms, yet the idea o f a larger unit in which sm aller units form a unity, each larger unit being concluded with a refrain (as p roposed below for Eph 1:3-14), can be confirm ed and verified by two fam ous fifth-century hymns "^AKTfio K an'ou and 'E G n p eu o ái/ >xe a u o fio i (B ark-huizen 1989b: 175-190). T he concept of verses within a strophe, and strophes within a stan za, is co n v en ie n t, and fo r this re a so n I have a d o p ted this term inology of W atson, but, as indicated above, this principle o r idea is p resent in the two hymns which I have referred to. I m aintain that it is really irrelevant w hat term inology one uses. It is the principle which is of im portance. It is also interesting to note th at in th e first o f th e se hym ns th e re fra in does not follow th e sam e sy n tactical form throughout the hymn either!
In accordance with this principle I have divided the eulogy as follows:
Stanza 1 = strophe 1 (verse 3) strophe 2 (verse 4) strophe 3 (verses 5-6) Stanza 2 = strophe 1 (verses 7-8)
strophe 2 (verses 9-10) strophe 3 (verses 11-12) Stanza 3 = strophe 1 (verse 13)
strophe 2 (verse 14).
Each stanza (o r larger unit) is concluded by the refrain, the refrains m arking off the stan zas as m ore o r less o f eq u al length, while both th e form al elem en ts and the principle o f co n ten t are fully tak en into account. Strophe 1 o f stanza 1 form s the
J H Barkhuizen
prooimion o r introitus, while stanza 3, being one strophe shorter than stanza 1 and 2, form s both the epilogue of the eulogy and the transitional passage to the rest o f the letter.
In is also in terestin g to note th a t in the analysis o f R obbins, based on G reek rh e to ric a l com position, and according to which th e passage is divided into eight periods, these periods correspond alm ost verbally with the eight strophes or sm aller units of my proposed structure. This confirms the rhetorical equality of the proposed stro p h e s , th a t is th e stro p h e s c o rre sp o n d to th e rh e to ric a l p e rio d s o f G re e k rhetorical composition.
4. R EC O N ST R U C T IO N O F T H E E U L O G Y IN EPH ESIA N S 1:3-14
4.1 T hem e and motives
T hem e (stan za 1: stro p h e 1 = 1.1): Praise o f G od for all his spiritual blessings in Jesus Christ.
T his them e is subsequently expressed and explained by various motives, each strophe dom inated by a specific motive. They are:
1. T he motive o f election (1.2)
2. TTie motive of adoption as children (1.3)
3. T he motive o f deliverance and forgiveness of sins (2.1) 4. T he motive of the unity of all things in Christ (2.2) 5. T he motive of sharing in his inheritance (2.3) 6. T he motive of the Holy Spirit as seal (3.1)
7. T he m otive o f th e H oly S pirit as pledge o f o u r in h eritan ce and deliverance (3.2).
4 2 T he G reek Text STA N ZA 1
Strophe 1 (Prooim ion)
(3) EúXoyTTca; ó 9eó<; koi ncrcfip
ToO Kupiou iTfiffii/ 'IttctoO XpWTOU Ó eOXoyncocQ fyaca;
é u m oTi eijXoyígí
év rou; énoupavbu; éi/ Xpiorii).
Ephesians 1:3-14
Strophe 2
(4) KaGox; é^eX é^a zo ipSc, é v o ú tS npo kotoPoXt^ KÓajiou e lv a i fuaoi; óyíouq Kai áno))io\x;
Korceu'wnioi/ o útou ë vá y ó n r i.
Strophe 3
(5) npoopíaoK; njioa; el^ u b G e a ía v
6ioc ’ Itictou XpurcoO el<; oúróu Kortá TTiv eú6oKÍai' toO GeXTnaxrcoq ocúxou
(6) eu; ënaii/ou SóCnc; xfïq xópitcx; aircoO Tfi éxapÍToxTev é v x S fiyaTtTva,éua). STANZA 2
Strophe 1
(7) éu S ë x o ^ f I' ónoXÚTptoati/
5ia Tou aitioToq aÚTOu
xfii/ áíficaii' xS v napomx(ojióx(i)i/ Kotxo xó nXoOxoí; xriq xapixoq aúxoí) (8) fiq é n e p ía a e w e i/ elq tdíSi;
éi/ n áari aoiji'ujc Kol (jipoufioeL
Strophe 2
(9) yvíDpíaocQ f\)aíu xó jiwxfipioL' xoQ 0eXT\^un:o<; aúxou, Korrót xfiv eúSoKÍai; aúxoO iii/ npoéGexo é v cxúxíB (10) e'u; oÍKOi'o^íaL' xoC TiXTipwjiotxoq xáji/ Kaipwi/
ái;aKei{iaXauócacrGai xóc n á u x a ê v xS X piaxS xá é n l xoT^ oúpauou; Kal x á é n i xfy; yfy; é v oorcS'
Strophe 3
(11) év S Kal CKXnpúGTmeu, ixpoopiaGéi/xe<;
Kocxá npóG eaii/ xoíj x á n á i a a éi/epyo\ji/xo(; Koxá XT\v PouXrii' xoO GeXfyiaxo<; aúxou
JHBarUuiizm
(1 2 ) elQ TO e lv a i fyiciq e l? ë ito iw i/ orirccn)
Toix; nponXnucoToq é u XpioxS).
S T A N Z A 3 Strophe 1
(13) é v tp Kal ú jie u ;
á K o ú a a v re g tóu X óyou xfii; áX n0eíaq,
TÓ cijo y y é X io i' ao jrrip íaí; Vmffiv,
é i/ S Kal n io rx cú a au T eq éa(|ipayía0TTce
tS nveÚMOTi énoyyeXioK; xíj) áyí<i),
Strophe 2
(14) 6 é cjT ii/a p p a l l / x f ^ icXTipowM.íaq
e lg ótnoX úrpcjaiv n ep m o ifio cax ;
e lq ë n a iv o i' xfy; Só^nq oúxou.
5. CON CLU SIO N
In the course of this article I have rem arked several tim es th at any reconstruction of this passage is speculative, yet I believe th a t such an a tte m p t is not w ithout any significance for the in terp retatio n o f the letter as a w hole. As O ’B rien (1979) has indicated, this is an unusual introduction to the letter, and it is therefore necessary to take a closer look at both its form and function. T he aim o f this p ap er was not to discuss its function within the context of the letter as a whole, but only to analyse its form al ch a ra c te ristic s an d stru ctu re. T h e re can be little d o u b t th a t 1:3-14 is a d e lib e ra te ly stylised passage an d th e re c o g n itio n o f the fact th a t it follow s the hymnic genre of the eulogy gives the p roper perspective on the letter: G od is praised in an extensive and expanded form for his blessings in Jesus Christ. Thus the author appropriately prepares the readers for the m ain them es o f his letter.
In my analysis I have taken into account (a) the formal characteristics o f hymnic texts (the eulogy falls w ithin the genre of hymnic texts), lim iting th e im portance of (b) the trin itarian concept as a dividing a principle, rath er concentrating on (c) the concept o f them e and motives. I believe I have lim ited the problem s of form and structure since my proposed reconstruction corresponds with both the principles of G reek rhetorical com position and the strophic division o f existing exam ples o f early hymns. The result is, to my mind, a m ore sym m etrical structure, and one in which
Ephesians 13-14
each section and sub-section becomes expressive of the theme of the eulogy in the form of various theological motives.
A PPEN D IX
1. T he m odel o f C outts
EúXoyritó»; e l crú, ó 9eóq Kal nocrnp xou K upbu ’IriaoO XpicnroO Ó eúXoyfiaou; Tijiaq e v nácnn eúXoyú? nu'eujioxu:^ éi/ Toiq é n o u p a v b i^ et/
X pujxS
Ó éicXeíá)aei'o<; e u otOxS npo KoxoPoXriq KÓajiou Ó npooplacxq r\)aaq elq u b G e a ia v 6iot ' It io oO XpicToO
Korra tfiv eúSoKÍav xou 0eXf\)jxn:ó<; a o u ei<; e n a i i 'O L ' t f ^ c to u
Kcrtoc XT
1
I/ X“p iv crou ?i éxapÍTtiXJOcq fuica; éi/ t S riycaiT\)aéu'a) c u S exofiev tfii/ oi(t)€aii' tGjv no(panTa)).i0Twi/év S óneK5€xó)j,e0a xfii/ ó n o X ú x p a K n i' 6 ia toO a'ifxorcoq onjtou é v S éKXTTp(í)0T\^iei/ TTii' KXripoi'G)aíai' rmfiji'
Korto TT
11
/ eú6oKÍai/ toO GeXruoatCK; ao u elq ënaiuoi/ a o uêu S, xS nveúfioTi t S óty'ui)
Tiicoúaafiei' t o eúayyéX ioi/ xfiq awxT^ioti; éniaxeúaafiew ' Ttp Xóyo) tfy; óXTiBeíaq
éa(j>payía0TT)aei/ elq ánoXúxpaxni/ tfy; itepinoifiaeax; Kocroc tfiv eúóoKÍai' xou GeXrDicrcoq oou
eiq ënaii'ou' xfy; Só^nq aou.
2. T he m odel o f Schnackenburg
(3) EuXoynxcx; ó 9eóc;
m l no tfip Tou Kupiou fviiju ’ In ao u X piaxou Ó eúXoyriaoM; rpai; €v nácnri eúXoy'ují ni/eu)iaTiK^
ê v t o u ; enoupauioiQ e v XpicrttB
J H Barkhuizen
(4) Ko0(i)q é^eXéCoTO I’moq eu aircS
npo KOToPoXriq KÓa|iX)u
e lv a i áyíou^ Kal ójiílbiiouq
Kortevíinioi/ aÚTcnj
(5) éi/ áycmin npoopurctq fyioq el<; ubSeaíai/
8ia 'lTiaou XpuTxcnj elq ocúxóv Korcá Tnv eó8oKÍai' toO 0eXf\)iorcoq oúxoO (6) elí; ënaii/oi/ 5ó^ti(; Tffe xopitoq otOxoO
riq exaptTaxTei' niooq é v xo) fiyotrnDJ.éi'Ci)
(7) ev S ëxo)J.ev xfiv ánoXútfXixni' 6ia xou a'i)icn:oq cnjxoO
xfiv c^eaiu tSv naponTTtojiÓTioi' Kcaa TO TiXoOxoq xópitoq otircoO
(8) fy; énepíaaeucei/ el<; TVioq ë v nácrri acxjii^ Kal (|)poi/riaei
(9) yuojpiaac; to mxrcfipiov toO GeXfyioToc; otircoi), KOCTOC TTiv eú8oK'uxv otÚToO TÏi/ npoéBcTO éu a ú tS (10) €Í<; olKoyo)j,íau ToO 7iXTipa))iaT0<; t2u KoipSv
avaKetliaXauixTaCTGai totouto é v tío X piorS TÓt én i toïí; oúpavotq Ka'i TÓt én i títí; yfV;,
(11) é v otÚTffi, éi/ S Kal éKXTip(ó9ip,ei/
npoopicT0éi/Teq koto npóGeaiu touto nái/Ta évepyoOi/roq
KOTO TTiu PouXtivtoO 0€Xf\(iaToq aÚTOU, (12) elq TÓ e lv a i fifioq elq ën aiv o i' 6ó^nq aÚTOu
Toíx; npoTiXmKOTaq e v tS XpicrTS
(13) éu (p Kal i))j.eu; ÓKoÍKjaiaeq tó v Xóyov t t ^ óXriGeíaq, TÓ eixxyyeXiov Tfiq awTTipíat;
êif S Kal nicrTeúaai/req
éa(t>payía0TiTe tw nveújiOTi rf^ CTrayyeXíoc; tS áy'ui),
(14) og éaTIV óppoPwu TT^ kXtyx)uo^w<; 11)10)1; elq ánoXúrpwaiu tt>; ncpmoifiaeajQ €Í<; ënaivou Tfjq 6ó^tt(; oútoO.
Ephesians l J
-14
3. T h e m odel o f Robbins
(3) EiiXoyrrcoq ó 0eóq Kal nottfip
T o O K upbu fyiS v ’iTicroO X purcou Ó €i)XoyTi0OK; f\|aSq
é u nácT^ eúXoyíg n v eu jiatu c^
êv zoiq CTTOupai/biq cu Xpujxtï)
(4) KaSdx; é ie X é ^ c a o
êv aÚTÍi)
Ttpó KorcaPoXf^ KÓafiou
elvai fijica; áybuq Kal óiji(í))jouq
Koaeuúmov ocútoO éu áyáit^
(5) n p o o p iaaq elq u b 0 € a ía v 5 ia ’ iTTaoO X purcoíi elq a ú ró v
Kotxá TTii/ eii)8oKÍai/ toO 0eXf\jioao(; aúxou (6) eU; ë n a ii'o u dó^rf; zfy; xápiToq oúrovi
^ êxapÍTíoaei' f\|do<; éu t 2 iTyarrrmei/a)
(7) év S exofiev ttiu ótnoXírcpaxjii/ 8ia Tou aïjwrcog aúxoO
TTiu a<|)€aiv tSu napanrwfiórtaji/ Kara xó nXouroq xfy; xápit«; onkoO
(8) ÉTiepíaaexKjeu cl^ f\)oSq év nácrri aoíjiíp Kal (jipci/rioei
(9) yi/topíaoK; fiiaiv to laixrrnpioi/ xoG 0€Xf\^aToq aúrou, Kara ttii/ eúSoicíav aircoO ni/ npoéSeTO ev onjxw
(10) el<; olicoi'ofiíav xoO nXiip<í))a
0
T0
(; Tui/KaipGiu waiceiliaXaitiKTaaSai x á n ái/x a éu t S Xpurcti) TO én'i Totg oupavou; Kal x a é n l xfy; y r ^(11) évocúxS
é v 2 Kal éKXTip<í)6rpei/, npoopia0€UX€(; Koxot npóG eaiu t o u x a náirca évcpyoui/xoq
Koxá xf)i; PoviXfii/ xou 0eXfmaxo<; aúxou
J H Barkhuizen
(12) el<; TO e lv o i finok; el<; ën aiu o v 6ó^Tig otvrcoO Toix; npoTiXniKOTC»; €V tS Xpujro)
(13) e v S vta'i újieu;
áK oúaavreq tó i/ Xóyoi/ t t k áXTiGeíac;, xb eúayyéX iou CTOJtTipíaq iTjiá)!/, ê v S Kttl ni(JTeúaauTe<; écj(t>payía0TTce x S nveú)oorti t f ^ eixayyeXiou; t S óyúi),
(14) o écrciv óppaj}d)i' Tffe KXrpoi'o^íaí; finffiu ek; óaioXúxptixjtv ttíq nepm oifiaeax; elq e n aiv o v t f ^ oúroO.
W orks cited
A udet, J-P 1958. Esquisse historique du genre litteraire de la ‘B énédiction’ juive et de L’‘E ucharistie’ chrétienne (1). R B 65,371-399.
Barkhuizen, J H (red) 1989a. Hyntni Christiani. Pretoria: G utenberg. (H T S Suppl 1.) — 1989b. Inleiding, in Barkhuizen 1989a:9-14.
— 1989c. V roeë strofiese himnes, in Barkhuizen 1989a:175-190.
B ouw m an, G 1974. De B rief aan de Efeziers: H et N ieuw e T e sta m e n t. Bussutn; Unieboek.
Cambier, J 1963. La bénédiction d’Eph 1,3-14. ZyVH'54, 58-104.
C o n z e lm a n n , H 1976. D ie Briefe an die G alater, Epheser, Philipper, Kolosser, Thessalonicher und Philemon, G ottingen: V andenhoeck.
C oppieters, H 1909. La doxoiogie de la lettre aux Ephesiens: N otes sur la construc tion syntaxique de Eph.1,3-14. R B 6, 74-88.
Coutts, J 1956/7. Ephesians 1:3-14 and 1 P eter 1:3-12. N T S 3,115-127. Dahl, N A 1951. Afresse und Proom ium des Epheserbriefes. T/iZ 7, 241-264. D eichgraber, R 1967. G otteshymnus und Christushymnus in derfrUhen Christenheit:
U n tersuchungen zu Form , S p ra ch e u n d S til d er fr iih c h ristlic h e n H ym n en . G ottingen: Vandenhoeck.
Dibeiius, M 1953. A n die Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemoru Tiibingen: M ohr. (H N T.) G lo er, W H 1984. H om ologies and hymns in the New T estam ent: Form , content
and criteria for identification. Perspectives on Religious Studies 11,115-132. G nilka, J 1971. Die Epheserbrief. Freiburg: H erder.
Innitzer, T H 1904. D er Hymnus im Epheserbrief, 1:3-14. ZK Th 28, 612-621. Kasem ann, E 1958. sv Epheserbrief. R G GII.
Ef^ic&iaiis 13-14
K ram er, H 1967. Z u r sprachliche Form der Eulogie E p h .l, 3-14. iVort und Dienst 9, 34-46.
Lang, F 1969. D ie E ulogie in E p h eser 1,3-14, in A bram ow ski, L & G o eters, J F (ed s), Studien zu r C eschichte u n d Theologie der R eform ation. N euicirchen Verlag.
Louw , J P 1987. E p h e sia n s 1:3-14: A litu rg ical hym n? U n p u b lish e d le c tu re , U niversity of Pretoria.
— 1989. Die Johannese Logos-himne (Joh 1:1-18), in Barkhuizen 1989a:35-43. M aier, J 1972. Ceschichte der judischen Religion Berlin: D e G ruyter.
M artin, R P 1982. sv H ym ns in th e NT. The International Standard Bible Ency clopedia II.
— 1983. New T estam en t hymns: B ackground and developm ent. E T 9 4 / 95, 132- 136.
M asson, C H 1953. L ’épitre de saint P aul aux Galates: L ’épitre de saint Paul aux éphesiens. C om m entaire du Nouveau Testam ent. Paris: Neuchátel.
M aurer, C 1951/2. D er H ymnus von Eph 1 als Schlussel zum ganzen Brief. EvTh 11, 151-172.
Mitsakis, K 1986. 'Yjxi'oypa<t>ía. A thene: G regore.
N o rd e n , E [1913J 1956. A g n o sto s Theos: U ntersuchungen zu r F orm geschichte religioser Rede. Stuttgart: Teubner.
O ’Brien, P 1979. Ephesians 1: An unusual introduction to a New T estam ent letter. N T S 25, 504-516.
Ochel, W 1934. Die A n n a h m e einer Bearbeitung des Kolosserbriefes im Epheser-Brief. Ev.-teol. Diss.: M arburg.
Richter, G 1970. 1st (en) ein strukturbildendes E lem ent im Logoshymnus Joh l,lff? Biblia 51, 539-544.
Robbins, C h J 1980. T he rhetorical structure of Philippians 2:6-11. CBQ 42,73-82. — 1986. T he com position of Ephesians 1:3-14. JB L 105/4,677-687.
R oberts, J H 1983. Die Brief aan die Efesiërs. K aapstad: NG Kerkuitgewers. Robinson, J M 1964. D ie H odajot-Form el in G eb et und Hymnus des
Friihchristen-tums. B Z W 30, 194-235.
Sanders, J T 1965. Hymnic elem ents in Ephesians 1-3. Z A W 56 (3-4), 214-232. S ch atten m an n , J 1965. Studien zu m neutestam entlichen Prosahymnus. M iinchen:
Beck’sche.
Schille, G 1965. FrUhchristlichen Hymnen. Berlin: Evangelische V erlagsanstalt. Schlier, H 1971. Der Brief an die Epheser. Diisseldorf: Patmos.
Schnackenburg, R 1977. D ie grosse Eulogie E ph 1,3-14: Analyse u n ter textlinguis- tischen A spekten. B Z 21, 67-87.
J H Barkhuizen
Slander, H F 1989a. The Starhymn in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (19:2- 3). FigC/ir 43, 209-214.
S ta n d e r, H F 1989b. Ig n atiu s. C h ristu s die Ster: A an d ie E fesiers 19,2-3, in Barkhuizen 1989a:102-106.
V an d e r L ugt, P 1980. Strofische structuren in de B ijbels-H ebreeuw se Poëzie. K ampen: Kok.
W atson, W G E 1986. Classical Hebrew poetry: A guide to its techniques. Sheffield: JSOT.
